yugo jennifer_emotional labor, panas ,etc. phd
TRANSCRIPT
THE ROLE OF CALLING IN EMOTIONAL LABOR
Jennifer Ellen Yugo
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2009
Committee:
Jennifer Z. Gillespie, Advisor
Jeanne A. Novak Graduate Faculty Representative
Milton D. Hakel
Mary L. Hare
Scott E. Highhouse
ii
ABSTRACT
Jennifer Z. Gillespie, Advisor
With the increasing emphasis on customer service in business and industry,
understanding how employees respond to emotional demands and manage emotions during
interactions with customers is critical for organizational performance. Managing emotions for a
wage can encompass several strategies, including: surface acting, deep acting and the expression
of genuine felt emotions. Research on the meaning of work has also received increased attention
recently. In complying with emotional demands inherent in an occupation, the degree a person
perceives the job as meaningful, and has a calling orientation, may increase emotional labor,
particularly deep acting and genuine felt emotions. The present study examined if having a
calling orientation for work, or perceiving work as significant and rewarding, strengthened the
relationship between customer emotional demands and emotional labor. Using two measures of
customer emotional demands (O*NET database index and self-report), the present study found
that emotional demands were positively related to self-reported emotional labor strategies. In
addition, the calling orientation significantly moderated the relationship between non-self report
and self-report emotional demands, and emotional labor strategies. People high in calling
engaged in more deep acting and genuine felt emotion across emotional demands relative to
people low in calling. Finally, the interaction between calling and emotional demands
significantly predicted global job satisfaction, and in separate regression equations, was
mediated by surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions.
iii
This dissertation is dedicated with greatest gratitude to Joanne and Mike Yugo for their constant
caring, support and encouragement and parenting for the past 28 years.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to my advisor, Dr. Jennifer Gillespie, for her tireless support and guidance
throughout this project and my graduate career. I would also like to thank my committee
members, Drs. Milt Hakel, Scott Highhouse, Mary Hare and Jeanne Novak. Their insightful
suggestions and ideas were critical in the design, execution and communication of this project.
Most importantly, I am grateful to my mother, Joanne and my father, Mike for always believing
in me. Lastly, graduate school was often a lonely and friendless journey, and I am grateful to
Leisha Colyn for friendship and fun.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION…………… ............................................................................................... 1
Emotional Labor ........................................................................................................ 4
Meaning ........................................................................................................... 9
The Current Study ...................................................................................................... 13
METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Participants ............................................................................................................ 18
Procedure ............................................................................................................ 19
Measures .......................................................................................................... 19
Analytic Strategy ........................................................................................................ 22
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations .............................................................. 24
Moderation……………............................................................................................... 25
Hypotheses 5a-5d: Moderated Mediation .................................................................. 27
Post-hoc analysis of occupations ............................................................................... 29
DISCUSSION …………… ..................................................................................................... 30
Findings…………… ................................................................................................... 30
Implications…………… ............................................................................................. 33
Limitations…………… ............................................................................................... 35
vi
Directions for Future Research…………… ................................................................ 36
Conclusions…………… ............................................................................................. 38
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 40
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Items in Glomb et al. (2004), equation of emotional demands and indices for example
occupations ................................................................................................................ 50
2 Original and revised work orientation measure with new pilot items ....................... 51
3 Measures of emotional labor strategies...................................................................... 52
4 Variable means, standard deviations and alpha internal consistency reliability ........ 53
5 Variable inter-correlations ......................................................................................... 54
6 Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between O*NET
emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions ................ 55
7 Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between self-report
emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions ................ 56
8 Moderated mediation analysis for surface acting partially mediating the interaction of
calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ............................ 57
9 Moderated mediation analysis for deep acting partially mediating the interaction of
calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ............................ 58
10 Moderated mediation analysis for genuine felt emotion partially mediating the interaction
of calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction ........................ 59
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Model of hypothesized relationships ......................................................................... 60
2 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting ..... 61
3 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and surface acting . 62
4 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and deep acting ......... 63
5 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and deep acting ..... 64
6 Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and genuine felt emotions
………………………………………………………………………………………. 65
7 Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions
………………………………………………………………………………………….66
Calling Orientation 1
INTRODUCTION
One of the most noticeable trends in the workplace over the last few decades has been the
increased emphasis on service. Many organizations’ recruitment, training and policies reflect a
strong customer service emphasis. One of the main reasons behind this trend is that “when
competition in price is out, competition in service is in” (Hochschild, 1983; p. 92). In order to
thrive in an increasingly competitive world, organizations in all industries (e.g., government,
education) are striving to improve service interactions with customers. The customer role has
also taken on a broader scope to include any person who benefits from a worker’s job tasks.
These beneficiaries range from traditional customers buying a product or service, the public in
the case of government and public safety workers, and students for educators (Grant, Campbell,
Chen, Cottone, Lapedis & Lee, 2007).
The increased emphasis on customer interactions has contributed to the exploration of
emotional labor; a construct first defined by Hochschild (1983, 1990) as the management of
emotion for a wage. Workers in a variety of professions encounter emotional demands that
require the expression of specific emotions (Glomb, Kammeyer-Mueller & Rotundo 2004). For
example, police officers have to express stern, negative emotions when enforcing the law, and
customer service providers need to express compassion when interacting with disgruntled
customers. The emotional demands present in a job can vary, affecting the nature and strength of
emotional labor.
Grandey (2000) constructed a framework suggesting the situational cues that require
emotional labor. Although this framework does not refer specifically to occupational
characteristics, interaction expectations, and emotional events may be similar within an
occupation. Occupational characteristics such as the frequency of positive and negative
Calling Orientation 2
emotional events and the expectations for interactions with customers, determine what is
emotionally demanding about an occupation and the type and nature of emotional labor required
(Grandey, 2000).
In addition to an increased interest in emotional labor and customer service in recent
years, organizational scholars have paid more attention to the meaning people derive from paid
employment. With workers spending increasing time at work (Schor, 1992) and with the
intensity modern workers pursue their careers (Green, 2006; Hewlett & Luce, 2006), it is not
surprising that scholars have grown increasingly interested in the ways people find and create
meaning in their work (Baumeister, 1991; Brief & Nord, 1990; Castillo, 1997; Pratt & Ashforth,
2003; Shamir, 1991; MOW International Research Team, 1987; Wrzesniewski, Dutton &
Debebe, 2003; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz,
1997). Likewise, the popular press has exploded with publications touting strategies that people
and organizations can use to create a more meaningful work experience (Bains, 2007; Bronson,
2002; Levoy, 1997). Although empirical research in this area is in its early stages, it is generally
assumed that finding greater positive meaning in work will yield beneficial outcomes for
employees, organizations and beneficiaries. Indeed, several empirical studies have provided
tentative support for this hypothesis (Cardador, Pratt, & Dane, 2006, 2007; Wrzesniewski, et al.,
1997; Yugo & Gillespie, in progress).
In order to better understand and test the ways people see, relate to, and find meaning in
paid employment, scholars have increasingly looked to the work orientation construct.
Introduced to the organizational literature by Wrzesniewski et al. (1997), the tripartite model of
work orientation characterizes people’s relationship with their work and the primary ways they
find meaning in the work domain. Although initially proposed by Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) the
Calling Orientation 3
job, career and calling orientations were described in ethnographic research a decade before to
categorize predominate ways people approach and relate to work (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan,
Swindler, & Tipton, 1985). Scholars have been using the construct as one of the primary
empirical means of capturing individual differences in work meaning; however, while the
construct has elicited much research recently, research has yet to investigate the mechanisms
through which it has this effect. Little is known about the relationships between work orientation
and variables that may explain its effects on job, health and life satisfaction (Wrzesniewski, et
al., 1997). The present study took steps to investigate this question.
This paper integrates research on both emotional labor and work orientation to examine
the role having a calling orientation plays in moderating the relationship between the emotional
demands of work and emotional labor. In addition, an initial model is tested (see Figure 1),
assessing how the interaction of emotional demands and the calling orientation affects job
satisfaction and if this is partially mediated by emotional labor. Because emotional labor has
been found to be a critically important construct for performance and well-being, exploring
relevant related constructs and moderators has the potential to broaden understanding of the
construct (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Grandey, 2000). Further, how people respond to the
emotional demands of a job may be affected by how people perceive the job relates to their
personal identities, which is related to the meaning they derive from work (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993). This introduction will first discuss emotional labor, then work orientation,
focusing on the calling orientation, and finally provide a description of the proposed research and
hypotheses.
Calling Orientation 4
Emotional Labor
Understanding emotional labor is critical because of the importance of human interaction
in the completion of work tasks. The emotions employees choose to express have significant
effects on organizational outcomes. Emotional labor, however, has also been linked negative
psychological and organizational outcomes for service providers including self-reported stress,
job dissatisfaction and burnout (Bono & Vey, 2007; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1983; Morris &
Feldman, 1996). In particular, job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied variables of
employee well-being and is often undermined by emotional labor (Bulan, Erickson, & Wharton,
1997; Grandey, 2000; Morris & Feldman, 1997; Wharton, 1993, 1996). This study helps to
uncover how one construct, the calling orientation, transcends the relationships between
emotional demands, emotional labor and job satisfaction.
Emotional Display Rules. Because of the evidence of the economic dividends and
personal costs of emotional labor, Morris and Feldman (1996) argued that the expression of
emotion has become “a marketplace commodity,” (see also Hochschild, 1983, 1990). Therefore,
many organizations dictate how emotions should be presented to others through the use of
emotional display rules (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003). Emotional display rules are norms and
expectations that state which emotions are appropriate and/or required and how those emotions
should be expressed (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003; Diefendorff & Richard, 2003; Ekman,
1973).
These rules can either be explicitly stated role expectations, or unwritten and implicit
rules that can be taught in one’s occupational education, or learned in one’s professional
experience or during the organizational socialization process (Diefendorff & Richard, 2003;
Zapf, Vogt, Siefert, Mertini & Isic, 1999). Whether explicit or implicit, employees and
Calling Orientation 5
supervisors perceive them to be required, in-role aspects of their jobs (Diefendorff, Richard, &
Croyle, 2006). Caring teachers, stern police officers and friendly salespeople are common
examples. Some jobs may require the display of negative emotions (e.g., police) or neutral (e.g.,
teacher) emotions. However, the display rules appropriate for most jobs require employees to
show displays of positive emotions (such as happiness, excitement or cheerfulness) and to hide
displays of negative emotions (such as anger or contempt) (Grandey, et al., 2005).
Emotional labor strategies. Achieving the required emotional displays for a situation
often requires the use of emotional labor strategies. Two common strategies for regulating
emotional displays in the work environment are (a) surface acting which involves suppressing
undesired emotions and/or faking the desired emotions, and (b) deep acting, which involves
modifying one’s feelings in order to display the appropriate emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey,
1993; Grandey, 2000). Hochschild (1983, 1990) described surface acting as a process where the
individual creates the outward appearance of a desired emotion without altering felt emotion.
Similarly, Grandey (2000) described surface acting as the suppression of felt emotions and the
faking of desired emotions. With surface acting workers focus entirely on the outward behavior
they are displaying to others (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).
Whereas surface acting involves the faking or suppression of emotions to comply with an
emotional demand, deep acting involves actually changing one’s inner feelings in order to elicit
the appropriate emotional display. This can be accomplished by exhorting oneself to feel the
desired emotion, or through imagination (Grandey, 2003; Hochschild, 1983, 1990). For
example, Hochschild (1983) describes how flight attendants imagine that rude and insulting
passengers may have experienced a stressful or tragic event recently, like the death of a child, in
order to more easily express the positive emotions of sympathy and concern. In other instances,
Calling Orientation 6
attendants will think of memorable happy events to exhort positive emotions. In this case the
flight attendants are deep acting by changing their internal emotional states in an attempt to
express authentic emotions (Grandey, 2000; Grandey, 2003). In contrast to deep acting, where
workers focus exclusively on the outward appearance of emotions and behavior, with deep
focuses directly on one’s inner feelings as people strive for the expression of genuine emotions.
(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). Workers who use deep acting more than surface acting may also
have a greater desire to help customers and to express authentic emotions in their work (Ashforth
& Fried, 1988).
Researchers have empirically demonstrated that the difference between deep and surface
acting may help explain the negative outcomes linked to emotional labor. Surface acting has
been linked to less effective work behaviors as well as psychological impairment including, such
as inauthentic displays, lower customer ratings, depersonalization, emotional exhaustion and
dissatisfaction (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002;
Gosserand, 2003; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, et al., 2005; Grandey, Fisk, Matilla, Jansen, &
Sideman, 2005; Totterdell & Holman, 2003). Alternatively, deep acting leads to more healthy
and successful organizational outcomes including: authentic displays of emotion, feelings of
accomplishment, less negative emotions, greater job satisfaction, and performance (Brotheridge
& Lee, 2002; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; Grandey, 2000; Grandey, 2003; Grandey, Fisk &
Steiner, 2005; Totterdell & Holman, 2003).
In addition to surface acting (suppression and faking), and deep acting (changing inner
feelings), there is a third strategy that has been considered as a part of emotional labor: the
expression of genuine felt emotions (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Diefendorff, Croyle &
Gosserand, 2004; Grandey, 2000). This takes place when the employee’s actual emotions already
Calling Orientation 7
mimic those expected from the job, thereby eliminating the effort involved in order to achieve
the organizationally desired response. Although emotional expression occurs without effort,
negative genuine felt emotion may still cause psychological strain if the emotions are negative
(e.g., empathy in customer service occupations, or sternness and anger for police officers).
Indeed, Glomb and Tews (2004) found a positive relationship between negative genuine felt
emotions and emotional exhaustion.
In studying emotional labor, it is important to recognize that as emotional events occur
throughout the day people may employ deep acting, surface acting, genuine expression of
emotion, or a combination of the three. Job characteristics, or the required emotional demands,
as well as individual differences in the perception of work may strongly influence the type and
frequency of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Emotional demands. Implicit in understanding emotional labor is the idea that emotional
labor begins when a demand present in the environment requires a specific emotional display.
Consistent with research on job characteristics theory, jobs may differ in emotional demands and
vary in the frequency of required emotional displays, the strength of emotional display rules, the
variety of emotions required for successful job performance and the likelihood of emotional
dissonance (Morris & Feldman, 1996). Although emotional demands have been frequently
measured as a perceived stressor (e.g., Grandey, et al., 2005), only recently have emotional
demands inherent in a job been quantified and measured as a job characteristic (Glomb, et al.,
2004; Grant, 2007; Grant, et al., 2007). The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) is a
comprehensive occupational information system that documents the work tasks, contexts,
necessary skills and abilities needed for more than 10,000 occupations (Dunnette, 1999). The
research by Glomb et al. (2004) determined, using O*NET, that emotional demands can be
Calling Orientation 8
isolated from work task and work context items creating an index of emotional demands that
could be applied to each occupation in the database.
The two task activities, “Assisting and caring for others,” and “Performing or working for
the public,” and the three work context items, “Deal with external customers,” “Frequency in
conflict situations and “Deal with angry and unpleasant people,” demonstrated good model fit
through a series of principal component analyses and are conceptually and empirically distinct
from the cognitive and physical work demand items in the database. The authors’ research also
suggests that higher levels of emotional demands are associated with lower wage rates for jobs
low in cognitive demands and with higher rates for jobs high in cognitive and physical demands
(Glomb, et al., 2004).
The Glomb et al. (2004) study has the potential to provide a new non self-report way to
measure emotional demands as a job characteristic. Because the Glomb et al. (2004) study relied
exclusively on O*NET data and focused on developing and refining the index of emotional
demands, the present study tested the relationship between emotional demands and self-reported
emotional labor. In addition to the emotional demands index, the present study had participants
respond to the O*NET items directly, yielding two measures of emotional demands: the index
and self-report.
Although increased emotional demands are likely to be related to psychological strain
and negative organizational outcomes, a new theory of relational job design suggests that the
effects of emotional demands on psychological well-being may be more complex. Grant (2007)
posits that jobs that allow greater contact with beneficiaries (i.e. customers) increase perceptions
of perceived impact on beneficiaries/customers and this affects behavior and identity outcomes
such as effort, persistence, helping behavior, self-worth and job performance. According to
Calling Orientation 9
Grant’s theory, the positive impact customer contact has on behavior is affected by individual
motivational differences, possibly including perceived meaning of work (Grant, 2007). An
initial test of this theory found that people given increased contact with customers had greater
affective commitment, persistence and job performance (Grant,et al., 2007). High calling
oriented individuals may receive more positive feedback from customers because of their
increased emotional labor. This may allow the calling orientation to buffer the negative effects
of engaging in more emotional labor.
Meaning
Research on meaning in the work context exists in two areas: the meaning of work (e.g.,
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and meaning at work (e.g., Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Research is
needed to address both the nature of meaning from work life and what makes specific work tasks
meaningful. This research focused on the former, attempting to understand how individual
differences in perceptions of the purpose or fulfillment derived from work affect a person’s
reaction to emotional demands and engagement in emotional labor. Further, research on
meaning and early studies of work orientation have demonstrated the significant impact of work
meanings on job satisfaction (Wrzesniewski, et. al, 1996; Wrzesniewski, et. al, 2003). The
current research tested the impact of the interaction of emotional demands and one of the work
orientations (calling) on job satisfaction.
One of the most prevalent approaches to the study of meaning is as a part of job
characteristics theory (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1976). This
theory specifies the task conditions under which people are expected to have greater motivation
and satisfaction in their work. When work is perceived as meaningful, people will like their jobs
and be motivated to perform their jobs well. According to job characteristics theory, there are
Calling Orientation 10
five core characteristics that can be applied to any job: skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy, and feedback. The five core characteristics are thought to lead to three
psychological states, which include experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced
responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of the work. Skill
variety, task identity, and task significance combine to produce a meaningful work experience.
Experienced meaningfulness in turn contributes to critical outcomes of job performance,
motivation and satisfaction and employee motivation (Champoux, 1991; Hackman & Oldham,
1976); and has been found to be the most predictive of the three psychological states (Spector,
1997). Although tentative, Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) proposed an initial model that is similar
to job characteristics theory. In contrast to job characteristics theory, work orientation provides a
different perspective of work meaning where both worker personality and individual differences
interact with the characteristics of the work environment in meaning-making (Wrzesniewski, et
al., 1997; Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003).
When faced with the voluminous body of research aiming to address the reasons people
work it is clear that this question has been asked many times, by many people, across disciplines
and cultures (e.g., Nord, Atieh & Doherty, 1990). Indeed, we know that people across jobs,
industries, and eras have expressed different conceptualizations of paid employment (Ciulla,
2000), and also find meaning in different aspects of working (Bellah, et al., 1985; Brief & Nord,
1990; MOW International Research Team, 1987; Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). In the modern era
of the boundaryless career, where people rather than organizations drive career development,
scholars have argued that individual differences in work meaning become even more pronounced
and relevant (Arthur & Roussea, 1996; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Calling Orientation 11
In pursuit of understanding the meaning of work, scholars have created a number of
constructs including intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, work values, work commitment (Loscocco,
1989), job involvement (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), work involvement (Kanungo, 1982), and work
centrality (Dubin, 1956; MOW, 1987). A newer concept, work orientation, examines work
meaning from a slightly different perspective as the relationship people have with work
(Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). This concept stemmed from ethnographic research finding that
people differ in how people expend personal resources at work as well as the outcomes they wish
to attain (e.g., income, fulfillment) (Bellah, et al., 1985).
Work orientation was selected as the construct to assess work meaning because theory
involving on work orientation suggests job characteristics and individual differences, such as
personality, affect the construct (Bellah, et al., 1985; Wrzesniewski, et. al, 1997). Instead of
assessing individual differences in the degree to which people feel intrinsically, or extrinsically
motivated toward employment (e.g., Work Preference Inventory), work orientation may change
over time as a function of job characteristics (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). Also,
in the present study, emotional demands are assessed as a job characteristic. This study informs
how the interaction between a job characteristic variable, and work orientation, a combination of
job characteristics and individual differences, affects emotion regulation, or emotional labor.
The work orientation construct characterizes the relationship one has with the work
domain, in terms of the interpretation of one’s work role and the meaning of one’s work in the
broader context of life (Bellah et al., 1985; Parker, Wall & Jackson, 1997; Wrzesniewski, Dutton
& Debebe, 2003; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Bellah and colleagues (1985) introduced a
tripartite model of work orientation positing that people endorse one of three main orientations to
work: job, career, or calling. People with a job orientation see work primarily as a means to
Calling Orientation 12
necessary monetary rewards, and prefer to pursue their passion through non-work activities.
People with a career orientation see work mainly as an opportunity to achieve status, social
advancement and recognition. Finally, those with a calling orientation find meaning in the act of
working, because of the intrinsic fulfillment the work provides or the positive contribution it
makes on others or society.
In their seminal work, Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) operationalized and tested this
typology of work orientation and found these orientations to be significantly related to job and
life satisfaction. Of particular importance for the construct, paragraphs describing the job and
calling orientations had significant inverse correlations. This makes conceptual sense as
individuals who indicate they work primarily the financial sustenance and benefits are less likely
to endorse that work is one of the most indicating they strongly identify with work.
Unfortunately, Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) presented no exploratory or confirmatory factor
analyses to determine the factor structure of the construct, however, additional unpublished
empirical developments have suggested that the job and calling dimensions are opposite ends of
the same dimension, while career is a distinct, orthogonal dimension. This research has also
determine that the measure has improved reliability and validity when using a five-point Likert
response format instead of the true-false response format that was originally used (Yugo &
Gillespie, in progress).
Additional questions on the meaning of work involve its development and stability over
time. People are motivated to create meaning from their experiences and environments (Brief, et
al., 1990). Meaning creation helps to foster a sense of purpose, self-efficacy and self-worth
(Bauemeister, 1991). Work orientation theory suggests that meaning is created and affected by
both individual differences and the work environment. Research suggests that a person’s
Calling Orientation 13
relationship with work may change as the person interacts and changes the work environment
and as the environment affects the person (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). Some initial evidence
suggests that work orientation may vary greatly among people with the same work environment.
In a small study of administrative assistants, all of whom shared the same job level and work
activities, the job, calling and career orientations were fairly evenly represented (Wrzesniewski
et al., 1997). Interestingly, initial studies have shown that work orientation may be related to
other important social variables and work outcomes (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). For example,
calling-oriented people may have higher levels of education, greater incomes, and higher
occupational status than do people with other orientations (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
Furthermore, those with a calling orientation report working longer hours and missing fewer
days of work (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997), while experiencing higher job and life satisfaction
(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), seeing their work as more meaningful (Cardador, Pratt, & Dane,
2006), and more strongly identifying with their organization and profession (Cardador et al.,
2006). Evidence has also suggested that people with calling orientations may be high performers
in their organizations (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). Although it may seem from these results that
a calling orientation is the most desirable way to view one’s work, there may be a potential “dark
side” of seeing work as a calling, because of the tendency to perceive one’s work as greatly
important and a greater desire to make a difference in the face of obstacles or demands
(Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003). High calling oriented people may empathize more with customers,
experience more negative genuine felt emotions and a possible decrease in well-being.
The Current Study
One of the primary goals of the present research was to measure emotional demands as a
job characteristic using the O*NET database and determine, for the first time, the relationship
Calling Orientation 14
between the index and emotional labor strategies (Glomb, et al., 2004). Determining how the
interactive effects of emotional demands (measured as a job characteristic), and the calling
orientation (impacted by both job characteristics and individual differences) influence job
satisfaction was a second goal. Determining these relationships, however, hinged on the
measurement of the calling orientation and emotional demands. In addition to the O*NET
measure of emotional demands, a self-report measure of emotional demands, asking participants
to respond to the same O*NET job descriptors was also included to assesses the relationship
between the index and self-report measures. The self-report emotional labor demand measure
was used to further validate the O*NET measure. Past research on emotional labor has
suggested that workers in jobs with greater emotional demands as defined by the Glomb et al.
(2004) index, are more likely to engage in emotional labor. Jobs with greater emotional demands
often require specific emotional displays when interacting with customers, requiring workers to
alter their genuine felt emotions. Thus, the following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 1: Emotional demands are positively related to emotional labor (i.e., surface
acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions).
The literature on work orientation and relational job design suggests that the meaning
derived from work may transcend the emotional experience of work (Wrzesniewski, et al., 2003;
Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007). The present study tested if the calling orientation interacted
with the emotional demands present in the job to have an effect on emotional labor (surface
acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotion), and job satisfaction. A conceptual model of the
relationships tested in the present study is shown in Figure 1. Recent research on emotional
regulation has found that suppression, or surface acting, requires more effort and depletes
emotional resources (Liu, Prati, Perrewe & Ferris, 2008). Low calling people may lack the
Calling Orientation 15
emotional resources or focus to engage in other more effortful emotional labor strategies, leading
to surface acting; however, suppression based strategies in turn reduce task focus (Wallace,
Edwards, Shull, & Finch, 2009). Similarly, from a motivational perspective, surface acting
may be more consistent with low calling people who perceive work tasks as less rewarding.
Consistent with Grant’s relational job design model, low calling people may lack the motivation
to deep act or feel genuine emotions that satisfy emotional demands (Grant, 2007). Low calling
people may lack the emotional resources or focus to engage in other more effortful emotional
labor strategies, leading to greater reported surface acting surface acting. This leads to the
second hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Calling orientation moderates the relationship between emotional
demands and surface acting. Specifically, if there is a low calling orientation there is a
stronger positive relationship between emotional demands and surface acting.
The next two hypotheses suggest how the calling orientation may moderate the
relationship between emotional demands and the remaining two strategies: deep acting and
genuine felt emotion. According to the conceptual definition of the calling, people with a calling
orientation perceive their work as intrinsically meaningful (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). Because
work tasks and social interactions are perceived as having a greater purpose or meaning the
calling orientation may be related to genuine felt emotion when encountering emotional
demands. Recent research has found that certain deep acting strategies increase task focus
(Wallace, et al., 2009), and emotional resources (Liu, et al., 2008). This may be in part a result
of genuine felt emotion that is generated through deep acting (Diefendorff & Gosserand, 2003).
Additional emotional resources may increase the ability to engage in deep acting, a strategy that
requires greater effort. A higher calling orientation may be related to greater genuine felt
Calling Orientation 16
emotions, more emotional resources, and deep acting. Conversely, people low in calling, may
lack genuine felt emotions, have less emotional resources, and do not wish to express authentic
emotional displays, resulting in surface acting. This leads to the following hypotheses for calling
orientation as a moderator of emotional demands and emotional labor:
A desire for authenticity in interactions with customers, and a greater concern for
customers are positively related to deep acting, genuine felt emotions and job satisfaction
(Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). These motivations may be
greater in people high in the calling orientation who may perceive work as more important and
rewarding (Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997). This reasoning leads to hypotheses 3 and 4.
Hypothesis 3: Calling orientation moderates the relationship between emotional
demands and deep acting. Specifically, for the high calling orientation there is a stronger
positive relationship between emotional labor and deep acting.
Hypothesis 4: Calling orientation moderates the relationship between emotional
demands and genuine felt emotion. Specifically, for the high calling orientation there is a
stronger positive relationship between emotional labor and genuine felt emotions.
Finally, the relationship between calling, emotional demands and emotional labor is
largely of interest because if its affect on well-being variables such as job satisfaction that impact
organizational outcomes (e.g., turnover, organizational commitment). This study suggested that
the calling orientation is likely related to greater levels of deep acting and genuine felt emotion,
however, higher levels emotional labor may diminish job satisfaction. Past research has found
positive links between the calling orientation and job satisfaction, however, there is a negative
relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction (Grandey, 2000; Morris & Feldman,
Calling Orientation 17
1996). This suggests that the relationship between these variables is not as simple as once
thought.
The present study investigated how the interaction between emotional demands and the
calling orientation impacts global perceptions of job satisfaction and how this relationship is
partially mediated by specific emotional labor strategies (surface acting, deep acting and genuine
felt emotion). The primary focus of the study was to determine how emotional demands as a
job characteristic impact emotional labor. Thus, for the following hypotheses only the O*NET
index of emotional demands was used.
Hypothesis 5a: The interaction of calling and emotional demands is positively related to
job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the
calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by surface
acting.
Hypothesis 5c: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the
calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by deep
acting.
Hypothesis 5d: The relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and the
calling orientation, and job satisfaction is significant and partially mediated by genuine
felt emotion.
Calling Orientation 18
METHOD Participants
A total of 338 employees in retail stores, police departments, engineering firms, banks,
and universities throughout the Midwest were recruited to participate. The sample consisted of
the following organizations: four retail stores from two different chains, a national bank, three
companies in manufacturing and engineering and two police departments. These organizations
were selected because of their likelihood of participation and the quantitative variance in
emotional demands (see Table 1). In addition, a strength of this sample is the diversity in the
nature of emotional labor within the included occupations (e.g., police officers often display
stern, negative emotions, while retail workers and sales engineers display positive emotions.
One important characteristic of the sample is the diversity in status, a variable that may affect the
nature of the customer service interaction. Wharton (2009) suggested the importance of
sampling high and low status occupations in emotional labor research. Retail worker is a low
status job, while sales engineers are likely to receive greater respect by customers.
Senior management in selected organizations were presented with information describing
the present study and asked if they were willing to participate. Managers were told the benefits
for participating included a summary of the study’s findings and the chance for employees to win
a $25 Amazon gift card. All participating organizations, with the exception of three retail stores,
were given a link to an online version of the survey which was disseminated to employees via
organizational email lists by senior management. For the retail stores, hard copy surveys were
made available in break rooms and links to the online survey were placed on communal work
computers. The majority of the sample was male (55%), salaried (74%), and had been with their
current organization between five and 15 years (53%). Sixty eight percent of the sample
reported earning a Bachelor’s or advanced degree. The index of emotional demands for the
Calling Orientation 19
frequently sampled occupations is available in Table 1. All participants worked at least 30 hours
a week. Because surveys were distributed by supervisors via email, and left in communal areas,
an exact response rate cannot be calculated, however, based on the size of the organizations and
departments used for the study approximately 815 potential participants were contacted, yielding
a response rate of 41 percent.
Procedure
After receiving the electronic or paper copy survey, participants reviewed the information
sheet that invited them to participate in a study on the role of emotions at work; and informed
they would be entered in a raffle for a $25 Amazon gift card, in which they would have a one in
twelve chance of winning, for completing the survey. After agreeing to participate, participants
provided their name and e-mail address, for the gift-card raffle, and continued to the beginning
of the survey.
Before completing the emotional demand measures at the beginning of the survey
participants were instructed that for the purpose of the survey a customer is anyone they provide
goods or services for outside the organization. The instructions also provided examples of
customers that would apply for the sampled population (e.g., the public for police officers,
students for administrators).
Measures
Positive and Negative Affect. Because both the meaning of work and emotional labor are
affected by positive and negative affect the Positive and Negative Affect Schedules measure was
administered to control for this potential confound. Participants completed the 20-item PANAS
to indicate the extent they generally felt a series of 20 emotions, ten indicative of positive affect
and ten measuring negative affect. A 5-point response scale was used ranging from “Very
Calling Orientation 20
slightly or not at all” to “Extremely.” Example emotions include: “irritable”, “guilty”,
“ashamed” and “upset,” (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The internal consistency reliability
for the negative affect scale was α=.84 and .86 for the positive affect scale.
Emotional demands. Emotional demands were measured with an O*NET index of
emotional demands, and participant self-report of the same O*NET emotional demand items.
O*NET database index of emotional demands. A five item index developed by Glomb et al.
(2004) for quantifying the emotional demands of a job from the O*NET database was used as a
non self-report measure of emotional demands. Two generalized work activities, “assisting and
caring for others,” and “performing or working with the public,” along with three work context
items, “deal with external customers,” “frequency in conflict situations,” and “deal with
angry/unpleasant people,” comprised the index. These items are available in O*NET for each
job present in the database and all five items were averaged to create an index of emotional
demands. The internal consistency reliability for the measure was α=.60.
O*NET item self-report. In addition to the index of emotional demands derived from the
O*NET database participants responded to each of the five O*NET items on a 1-5 “Not
Important” to “Extremely Important” scale. The internal consistency reliability for the measure
was α=.68.
Calling orientation. The 11 item calling subscale of the measure of work orientation
originally developed by Wrzewsniewski et al. (1997) and further developed by Yugo et al. (in
progress) was administered to measure the meaning of work. This measure uses a 5-point Likert,
“Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree,” response format. Example calling items include, “I
find my work rewarding,” “When I am not at work I do not think much about my work,” (reverse
coded), and “I would choose my current work again if I had the opportunity.” All calling items
Calling Orientation 21
from the Wrzesniewski et al., (1997) measure are presented in Table 2. The internal consistency
reliability for the calling scale was α=.92. The three item career orientation subscale was also
administered for replication purposes. The internal consistency reliability for the career scale
was α=.78.
Emotional labor. Three emotional labor strategies were measured to assess emotional
regulation at work: surface acting, deep acting and expression of naturally felt emotions.
Surface acting. Grandey, et al.’s (2005) measure of surface acting was administered to assess
how often participants suppress or fake emotions during their work day when interacting with
others. Example items include, “I resist expressing my true feelings,” “I fake a good mood” and
“I put on an act in order to deal with customers/clients in an appropriate way.” The internal
consistency reliability for the scale was α=.88. The full measure of surface acting is presented in
Table 3.
Deep acting. Diefendorff et al.’s (2005) four item deep acting scale was used to measure the
extent to which employees report they modify their felt emotions so that genuine displays follow.
The items for this scale were adapted from Grandey’s (2003) deep acting scale and Kruml and
Geddes’ (200) scale of emotive effort. This scale has a reported reliability of .82 (Diefendorff et
al., 2005). Sample items include “I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to
show customers” and “I work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to customers.” The
internal consistency reliability for the scale was α=.91. The full deep acting measure is presented
in Table 3.
Expression of naturally felt emotions. Genuine expression of felt emotion was measured using
the three item measure by Diefendorff et al. (2005) was used to measure the expression of
genuine emotions. Example items include, “The emotions I show customers come naturally”
Calling Orientation 22
and “The emotions I show customers match what I spontaneously feel.” The internal
consistency reliability for the scale was α=.81. The full measure is presented in Table 3.
Global Job Satisfaction. To measure global perceptions of job satisfaction the 18-item
Job in General scale (JIG) was be administered (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson & Paul,
1989). The JIG is comprised of adjectives or short phrases and participants respond, “yes,” “no,”
or “?” for each item to indicate what their work is like most of the time. Example items include,
“pleasant,” “worse than most,” and “worthwhile.” For positive items, “yes” responses were
given a value of three, “no” a value of zero, and “?” a value of one. For negative items, “yes”
responses were given a value of zero, “no” a value of three, and “?” a value of one. The internal
consistency reliability for the calling scale was α=.92.
Analytic strategy
The over-arching goal of the present study was to examine how the calling orientation
affects emotional demands and emotional labor. The concept of emotional labor was measured
by three, separate emotional labor strategies: surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt
emotion. Bivariate correlations were first calculated to test the relationship between emotional
demands, the calling orientation and emotional labor strategies, and to examine the relationships
between the measured variables.
Each moderation hypothesis (Hypotheses 2-4) was tested independently with a series of
multiple regressions. For all multiple regression analyses, the main effects of emotional labor
(surface acting, deep acting, or genuine felt emotion), and calling orientation as well as their
interaction effect on emotional labor were examined. All regression analyses were computed in
the same manner and investigated the incremental contributions of the control variables in Step 1
(gender, age, negative affect, tenure), the predictor variables in Step 2 and the interaction term in
Calling Orientation 23
Step 3 (calling x emotional labor). All predictor variables were centered before calculating the
interaction terms to reduce multi-collinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). Significant interactions
were also plotted using values one standard deviation above and below the mean.
To understand if the calling orientation interacts with emotional demands to affect job
satisfaction, and if this relationship is mediated by emotional labor (surface acting, deep acting
and genuine felt emotions), the procedures for moderated-mediation described by Baron and
Kenny (1986) were followed. In this method, the degree of mediation is reflected by the
reduction of the effect of the predictor variable (the interaction of emotional demands and the
calling orientation) on the outcome when the mediator is added to the model. This analysis was
used to determine how the interaction impacts job satisfaction and if emotional labor mediates
the relationship between the interaction and job satisfaction.
Calling Orientation 24
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and Inter-correlations.
Descriptive statistics for all the variables included in this study are in Table 4. Included
in this table are the means, standard deviations and reliability estimates (coefficient alphas)
where appropriate. Coefficient alpha estimates ranged from .60 for the O*NET Database index
of emotional demands to .92 for measures of calling and job satisfaction. The majority of
coefficient alpha reliability estimates were appropriate, however, both measures of emotional
demands (O*NET and self-report) were below .70, warranting further examination (Lance,
Baranik, Lau, & Scharlau, 2009). This may be expected as values for the O*NET items are often
very different. For example, the occupation of sales engineer in the O*NET database, out of a
scale of 100, has score of 34 for Performing and Working for the Public, but a score of 77 for
Deals with External Customers. Examining the sum score for each occupation, indicating the
overall level of emotional demands may be more important than internal consistency, for the
measures of emotional demands. The sum score of the O*NET index of emotional demands, and
participant self-report of the same items have a correlation of .76, a possible indicator of
convergent and construct validity.
Inter-correlations are presented in Table 5. Correlations between genuine felt emotions,
deep and surface acting replicate previous findings in the emotional labor literature; a positive
relationship was found between deep acting and genuine felt emotion(r=-.41, p<.01), and surface
acting was negatively related to deep acting (r=-.36, p<.01) and genuine felt emotion (r=-.28,
p<.01). The calling orientation was found to be positively related to genuine felt emotion (r=.37,
p<.01) and deep acting (r=.35, p<.01), and negatively related to surface acting (r=-.21, p<.05).
Calling Orientation 25
The correlations between the two measures of emotional demands (self-report and
O*NET emotional labor demand index), and the three types of emotional labor were examined to
test Hypothesis 1, that emotional demands and emotional labor are positively related. This
hypothesis was supported. All correlations between measures of emotional labor (surface acting,
deep acting and genuine felt emotion) and the two measures of emotional demands were
significant. Correlations ranged from r=.21 p<.05, for self-report emotional demands and
surface acting, to r=.57 p<.01, for self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions. The
self-report measure was more strongly correlated with deep acting and genuine felt emotions,
however, surface acting was more strongly correlated with the O*NET index of emotional
demands.
Moderation
Hypothesis 2 proposed that the calling orientation would moderate the relationship
between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and surface acting. As shown in
Tables 6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling (β=.32,
p<.01 for emotional demand index, β= -.31 for calling, p<.01; and β=.21, p<.01 for self-report
emotional demands, β=-.29, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index, the
both main effects accounted for an additional 27 percent of the variance in surface acting above
the control variables; and an additional 31 percent for the self-report measure. The interaction
between calling orientation and surface acting was significant for both the index of emotional
demands, and the self-report measure (ΔR2=.09, p<.05; ΔR2=.06, p<.05). Both interaction plots,
as displayed in Figures 2 and 3 respectively, revealed the expected pattern of results.
Specifically, people with a high calling orientation report less surface acting, and there are
Calling Orientation 26
weaker relationships between emotional demands and surface acting for people high in the
calling orientation, and there is a stronger relationship for people low in the calling orientation.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the calling orientation would moderate the relationship
between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and deep acting. As shown in Tables
6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling (β=.27, p<.01 for
emotional demand index, β= .25 for calling, p<.05; and β=.34, p<.01 for self-report emotional
demands, β=.33, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index, the both main
effects accounted for an additional 22 percent of the variance in deep acting above the control
variables; and an additional 29 percent for the self-report measure. The interaction between
calling orientation and deep acting was significant for both the index of emotional demands, and
the self-report measure (ΔR2=.07, p<.05; ΔR2
Hypothesis 4 proposed that the calling orientation would moderate the relationship
between emotional demands (O*NET index and self-report) and genuine felt emotions. As
shown in Tables 6 and 7, both main effects are significant for emotional demands and calling
(β=.33, p<.01 for emotional demand index, β= .27 for calling, p<.01; and β=.42, p<.01 for self-
report emotional demands, β=.26, p<.01 for calling). For the analysis using the O*NET index,
the both main effects accounted for an additional 18 percent of the variance in genuine felt
=.05, p<.05). The interaction plots however
(Figures 4 and 5) did not depict the expected results. When using the O*NET index of emotional
demands, for high calling people the O*NET index was positively related to deep acting,
However, for low calling people, deep acting showed a negative relationship with emotional
demands. When using the self-report measure of emotional demands, deep acting is positively
related to emotional demands, but the relationship is weaker than for the O*NET index. Deep
acting remains constant for low calling people.
Calling Orientation 27
emotion, above the control variables; and an additional 27 percent for the self-report measure.
The interaction between calling orientation and genuine felt emotion was significant for both the
index of emotional demands, and the self-report measure (ΔR2=.14, p<.01; ΔR2
Hypothesis 5a- 5d: Moderated mediation.
=.11, p<.01).
Both interaction plots, as displayed in Figures 6 and 7, revealed results similar to those for deep
acting. Specifically, people with a high calling orientation express more genuine felt emotion,
and there are stronger positive relationships between emotional demands and genuine felt
emotion for people high in calling. Similar to deep acting, however, for people low in calling
there is a negative relationship between emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.
Hypotheses 5a-5d suggested that the relationship between the interaction of emotional
labor and the calling orientation is significantly related to job satisfaction and partially mediated
by emotional labor. This was broken down for each of the three types of emotional labor. To
test these hypotheses, the regression procedures developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) were
followed. In this method, the degree of mediation is reflected by the reduction of the effect of
the predictor variable on the outcome when the mediator is added to the model. For the first step
of the procedure it is necessary to determine if the interaction of emotional demands and calling
is significantly related to the outcome variable (job satisfaction). The control variables for all
tests of moderated mediation include the main effects of O*NET emotional demands and the
calling orientation, as well as positive and negative affect, which were shown to be significant
predictors of the calling orientation, emotional labor and job satisfaction. The results for
Hypothesis 5a can be seen in the first step for Tables 8 through 10. The results revealed that the
relationship between the interaction term and job satisfaction was positive (β = .34, p < .01),
supporting the first hypothesis and the first step moderated mediation.
Calling Orientation 28
Hypothesis 5b posited that surface acting would partially mediate the relationship
between the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction. Results for
Hypothesis 5b are presented in Table 8. The second step of moderated mediation is to test if the
interaction predicts the mediator (surface acting). This relationship was significant (β = -.39, p <
.01). In the third step, the mediator must affect the outcome variable (job satisfaction) while
controlling for the interaction term. After entering the control variables and the interaction term,
the mediator was still a significant predictor of job satisfaction (β = -.19, p < .01).
Lastly, for the final step in moderated mediation, partial mediation is shown when the
effect of the interaction on job satisfaction is reduced when the mediator (surface acting) is
controlled for. For this step the control variables were entered first, followed by mediator a then
the interaction term. The results showed that the interaction term is still a significant predictor (β
= .19, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 5b. In addition the Sobel test indicates that surface acting
is a significant mediator (Sobel statistic = 1.39, p<.05).
Hypothesis 5c posited that deep acting would partially mediate the relationship between
the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction. Results for Hypothesis 5c
are presented in Table 9. Again the interaction term significantly predicted the mediator in the
second step, (β = .31, p < .01). Deep acting also predicted job satisfaction, controlling for the
interaction term, in the third step (β = .17, p < .05). Finally, the interaction term was reduced in
magnitude in the final step when controlling for the mediator, deep acting (β = .16, p < .05).
The Sobel test was also significant (Sobel statistic = 1.45, p<.05) , supporting Hypothesis 5c, that
deep acting partially mediates the relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and
calling.
Calling Orientation 29
Hypothesis 5d suggested that genuine felt emotion would partially mediate the
relationship between the interaction of emotional demands and calling, and job satisfaction.
Results for Hypothesis 5d are presented in Table 10. The interaction term was a significant
predictor of the mediator in the second step, (β = .28, p < .01). In the third step, genuine felt
emotion also predicted job satisfaction, controlling for the interaction term (β = .26, p < .05). In
the final step, the interaction term was reduced in magnitude when controlling for genuine felt
emotion, the mediator (β = .21, p < .01). The Sobel test was also significant (Sobel statistic =
1.75, p<.05). Thus, Hypothesis 5d was supported.
Post-hoc analysis of occupations.
Because all hypotheses were supported, it is important to determine if any occupational
group (e.g., police officer, university administrator) may account for the significant findings.
Three one-way ANOVA tests of the eight sampled occupational groups were conducted with
emotional labor strategy as the independent variable. The results found that there were no
significant differences between occupational groups in emotional labor strategy: surface acting,
F(7, 330) = 1.56, p=.216; deep acting F(7, 330) = 2.12, p=.135; and genuine felt emotions
F(7,33) = 1.94, p=.189. Therefore, occupational groups were not significantly different in
emotional labor strategies and it can be concluded that occupational groups were not responsible
for the findings.
Calling Orientation 30
DISCUSSION
The goal of the present study was to better understand how the meaning of work,
specifically the calling orientation, affects the relationship between occupational emotional
demands and emotional labor. As organizations continue to emphasize customer service quality,
understanding not only how emotional demands affect emotional labor, but also the processes
that impact this relationship will become more important (Hochschild, 1990; Morris & Feldman,
1996). Using both a self-report measure and an occupational database (O*NET) index of
emotional demands, the present study found that perceived meaning moderates the relationship
between emotional demands and emotional labor. The following sections present a discussion of
this study’s findings, implications for research and practice, limitations of the current study and
potential directions for future research.
Findings
Support for the first hypothesis, suggesting emotional demands are positively related to
emotional labor, builds on the research of Glomb et al., (2004) by showing a significant
relationship between the index of occupational emotional demands and emotional labor
strategies. A strong significant correlation was found between the O*NET index and self-report
measures of emotional demands. This suggests convergent validity, and the emotional labor
demand index has the potential to be used as a way to measure emotional labor as a characteristic
inherent in a job.
Key to the present study was the potential link between emotional labor and the meaning
of work. Surface acting, as expected, was negatively related to the calling orientation, whereas a
significant positive correlation was found for the relationship between deep acting and genuine
felt emotion and the calling orientation. This and the overall significance of the findings in this
Calling Orientation 31
study demonstrate the strength of the calling orientation in explaining variance in critical work-
related variables.
The primary focus of the study involved determining if having a calling orientation
moderates the relationship between occupational emotional demands and emotional labor
(Hypotheses 2 through 4). Support for these hypotheses suggests that the calling orientation
affects the relationship between emotional demands and emotional labor. People high in the
calling orientation may find work more meaningful and have a greater desire for expressing
authentic emotions that comply with emotional demands resulting in less surface acting
(Diefendorf & Gosserand, 2003). High calling people may also have more emotional resources
relative to those low in calling (Liu, et. al, 2008; Wallace, et. al, 2009). As plots of the
interaction revealed for both emotional labor demand measures, surface acting increased for both
high and low calling people across emotional demands. The relationship between emotional
demands and surface acting, however, was stronger for those lower in calling. This may suggest
that low calling people are not as able to generate genuine felt emotions or create authentic
emotional displays and must, “put on a mask” to comply with emotional demands.
Hypothesis 3 tested if the calling orientation moderated the relationship between
emotional demands and deep acting, was also supported. A plot of the interaction revealed that
for low calling people deep acting is negatively related to both measures of emotional demands.
This may mean that low calling people in more emotionally demanding jobs are less likely to use
deep acting than their low calling counterparts in less emotionally demanding jobs. This finding
may also mean that high calling people deep act more frequently than people low in calling.
The results for the calling orientation as a moderator of emotional demands and genuine
felt emotions, Hypothesis 4, are similar to those for deep acting. Low calling people display less
Calling Orientation 32
genuine felt emotion when the job characteristics (O*NET index) or perceptions of the job (self-
report) require more emotional labor. Again, as with deep acting, high calling people feel more
genuine felt emotions. Some research suggests that deep acting my lead to the creation of
genuine felt emotion (Diefendorff, Croyle & Gosserand, 2003). People may initially not feel the
emotions required of an emotional display, but after exhorting the emotions required for the
situation and engaging in deep acting, they display required emotions genuinely (Ashforth &
Humphrey, 1993).
In sum, low calling people engage in more emotional labor overall, with the exception of
surface acting. Because high calling people engage in significantly more deep acting and
genuine felt emotion, and these variables are sometimes negatively related to well-being this
finding asks the question if it calling is beneficial for well-being indicators such as job
satisfaction. This was looked at in the mediated moderation analyses for Hypothesis 5.
Hypothesis 5a found the interaction term between emotional demands and the calling
orientation was a significant positive predictor of job satisfaction. Although high calling people
engage in more deep acting, which has a slight negative relationship with job satisfaction, and
experience more negative genuine felt emotions, the calling orientation is still beneficial for
well-being.
Hypothesis 5b found that the relationship between the interaction of the O*NET index of
emotional demands and the calling orientation, and job satisfaction is partially mediated by
surface acting. This may reflect that job satisfaction is affected by both the interaction of the
emotional characteristics of the job (O*NET emotional demands) and individual differences in
the perceived meaning of work (calling orientation), and surface acting is partially responsible
for this relationship.
Calling Orientation 33
Hypothesis 5c and Hypothesis 5d, found that deep acting and genuine felt emotion each
partially mediate the relationship between the interaction and job satisfaction. It is noteworthy
that high calling people can deep act and experience more genuine felt emotion but not
experience a decrease in well-being outcomes.
Implications
The present investigation has several implications for research and practice. On the
research front, the current study makes several contributions to the organizational literature on
emotional labor. First, this study expands the research of Glomb et al., (2004), by finding that
the O*NET measure of emotional demands is significantly related to measures of deep and
surface acting and genuine felt emotions. Second, the finding that calling moderates the
relationship between emotional demands and emotional labor, offers one explanation for the
mechanisms through which these demands relate to emotional labor.
The study also adds to the literature on the meaning of work examining how job
characteristics (e.g. emotional demands) may relate to perceptions of meaningful work. One
overarching question raised by this study is the directionality of emotional labor and calling.
Engagement in emotional labor strategies such as deep acting or genuine felt emotion may lead
to higher levels of calling; or, alternatively, higher levels of calling lead to the use of more
effective emotional labor strategies. Additional research can address the directionality of these
relationships.
The present research also shows the importance of the calling orientation as a variable in
explaining emotional labor. The calling orientation is positively related to emotional demands,
deep acting and genuine felt emotions. However, deep acting was negatively correlated with job
satisfaction, and past research has found negative genuine felt emotions increase emotional
Calling Orientation 34
exhaustion (Glomb & Tews, 2004). However, in the moderated-mediation analyses, the
interaction of emotional demands and calling was related to greater job satisfaction. This
suggests that people high in the calling orientation are able to engage in more emotional labor
without it diminishing job satisfaction. More research is needed to assess how the calling
orientation has this buffering effect against potential negative outcomes of emotional labor. A
greater understanding of the positive and possible negative effects of the emotional demands of
work and the calling orientation is also needed. More emotionally demanding jobs may be more
likely to cultivate a calling orientation in workers because of the increased contact with
customers. The model of relational job design suggests that jobs that allow people to see the
impact of their work on beneficiaries are more likely to experience positive psychological
outcomes (Grant, 2007). Alternatively, more emotionally demanding jobs and great perceptions
of meaningfulness, or calling, may increase vulnerability to stress and burnout. Understanding
what level of calling is optimal for well-being can be addressed through more specific
measurement of the calling orientation.
Another possible explanation for the positive effects of the calling orientation may
come from Côté’s (2006) recent social interaction theory. This theory suggests that strain from
emotional labor is reduced if it creates a favorable reaction in the customer. People high in
calling may exceed expectations and frequently receive positive reactions from customers,
lessening possible negative effects of deep acting and genuine felt emotions (Côté, 2005).
Similar to Grant’s (2007) theory of relational job design, high calling people may be more
motivated to seek out opportunities to interact with customers.
Conversely, low calling people engage in less deep acting and genuine felt emotions,
even as emotional demands increase. Low calling people may have less emotional resources to
Calling Orientation 35
engage in deep acting and genuine felt emotion, which are more effortful emotional labor
strategies (Wallace et al., 2009). Further, from the correlations and moderated regression
analyses, the calling orientation and surface acting are negatively related. This may mean that
people low in calling use surface acting as their primary emotional labor strategy (Grandey,
2003). Research has show that surface acting is less effective than other techniques in providing
customer service. Thus, low calling people may be caught in a negative spiral, where they do not
have the motivation or resources to engage in effective techniques, and possibly receive more
unfavorable responses from customers, preventing the engagement in more effective techniques
in the future.
Incorporating the measurement of emotional demands, and understanding the role of the
calling orientation in negotiating these demands may play a significant role in understanding the
effects of emotional labor strategies on outcomes such as job satisfaction. This research may
also have significant implications for employee selection, as low calling people may engage in
less effective strategies for managing emotions. Having a calling may create a significant buffer,
allowing people to avoid the negative consequences of emotional labor. In occupations high in
emotional demands, such as police work (the most demanding occupation in the current sample)
or care-giving, selecting people with a calling orientation may reduce job dissatisfaction, a
predictor of organizational commitment and turnover (Tett & Meyer, 2006).
Limitations
As with most research the present study has limitations. First, the present study utilizes a
cross-sectional design rather than a longitudinal design. Therefore, causality cannot be inferred.
Thus, the current investigation provides estimates of the strength of the relationships among the
presented constructs. Future research could test the relationships presented in this study in a
Calling Orientation 36
longitudinal design to examine the effects, for example of emotional demands (self-report and
O*NET index) on calling and emotional labor over time. An emerging technique in emotional
labor research is the use of experience sampling methodology (ESM), whereby people respond to
questions regarding their emotional displays, attitudes and emotion regulation repeatedly in real
time involving natural work contexts (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009; Miner, Glomb
& Hulin, 2005). This methodology could be very promising for emotional labor and work
meaning research.
An additional limitation is the potential for method bias due to participants completing
self-report measures for most of the constructs in the model. One exception is the construct of
emotional demands, where an index derived from the O*NET database was used. Future
research could also incorporate objective measures of service interaction characteristics (e.g.,
frequency, duration, perceived authenticity emotional displays).
Directions for Future Research
The present study has several key implications for future research on the construct of
emotional labor. The findings highlight the impact of three emotional labor strategies on job
satisfaction, and the impact perceptions of the work environment have on emotional labor. Each
emotional labor strategy significantly mediated job satisfaction, and was impacted by the
interaction of emotional demands and the calling orientation. Given these findings, future
research should include multiple measures of the management of emotions at work, such as
surface and deep acting, genuine felt emotions, as all were found to have different effects on job
satisfaction, and have different relationships to the calling orientation. Emotional labor
researchers could also consider other possible strategies for emotion regulation at work such as
using spirituality or personal values to manage emotions.
Calling Orientation 37
Strong, significant correlations were found between the constructs of interest in this
research: the emotional labor strategies (surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions),
and the calling orientation. This may suggest conceptual overlap between the calling orientation,
and emotional labor strategies that could be explored in future research. Research directed at
understanding the link between emotional labor and the calling orientation, and the reasons for
the significant relationships between the constructs can be helpful in advancing the literature in
both areas.
Additional research can be conducted to investigate how job characteristics affect the
meaning of work. This research could more specifically examine elements of the emotional
demands in the present study. For example, one of the items for the O*NET index and self-
report is “deal with external customers.” Interactions and emotional demands involving external
customers may differ in numerous ways in numerous ways, and the nature of these interactions
and job requirements can be investigated to find what characteristics generate perceived
meaningfulness of work. Understanding how emotional demands can lead to adaptive (deep
acting and genuine felt emotions) or maladaptive (surface acting) emotional labor strategies, high
or low job satisfaction, and meaning creates many possibilities for future research.
Further, this study found that using the five O*NET items comprising the emotional demand
index created by Glomb, et. al (2004) as a self-report measure, may be a valid and predictive
measure of emotional demands.
Determining the relationship between challenging and meaningful work is a rich topic
that warrants much further investigation. Consulting the literature on flow may prove beneficial
to determine if calling and flow are related as they seem to be similar constructs
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Mainemelis, 2001). In addition to emotional demands, it is possible
Calling Orientation 38
using the O*NET scales developed by Glomb et. al, (2004) to assess the degree of cognitive and
physical demands characteristic of an occupation. This could allow researchers to better
determine the relationship between the demands of a job and the meaning of work. Research can
provide the ideal profile of demands for developing a calling. Further, little is known about why
people choose different emotional labor strategies. This research showed that the calling
orientation affected choice of emotional labor strategies, however, additional research can be
done to understand the situations when high and low callings use different methods and how this
affects the outcome. Knowledge of the specific techniques high calling people use for deep
acting, and the degree of positive and negative genuine felt emotion can help explain differences
in performance and well-being between the two groups.
Further, the intriguing finding that high calling people engage in more emotional labor
can be explored further. Perhaps the calling orientation is also related to effective recovery
techniques and/or coping methods (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). No research has yet to
examine calling and performance criteria besides absenteeism (Wrzesniewski, 1997,
Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Also, the role and interactive effects of the second work orientation,
career, can be explored. The career orientation focuses on competition and status. The effects
on performance and well-being indicators such as job satisfaction can help further develop the
concept of work orientation.
Conclusions.
In summary this study tested the interactive effects of the calling orientation and
emotional demands, measured as a job characteristic, on emotional labor. Results show high
calling people engage in more deep acting and feel more genuine emotions, but low calling
people engage in more surface acting. Results for moderated-mediation show the interaction
Calling Orientation 39
between emotional demands and the calling orientation has a positive effect on job satisfaction,
and this relationship is partially mediated by each emotional labor strategy, respectively.
High calling oriented people, consistent with relational job design may perceive a greater
benefit being provided by their work to customers than low calling people (Grant, 2007). High
calling oriented people may also have more motivation to go beyond task requirements, resulting
in more desirable feedback from customers, and alleviating some of the negative effects of
emotional labor (Côté, 2005). Finally, low calling oriented people may lack the emotional
resources to engage in deep acting or genuine felt emotion (Wallace, et. al, 2009). Future
research can use the Glomb et al. (2004) O*NET measures to assess emotional demands
characteristic of a job, as well as expand research on emotional labor. Researchers can also try
to determine if high calling oriented people have greater job performance, and why the calling
orientation is related to increased job satisfaction.
Calling Orientation 40
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G., (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Amabile, T.M., Hill, K.G., Hennessey, B.A., & Tighe, E.M. (1994). Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 66, 5, 950-967.
Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment
principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The
influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal.
Human Relations, 48, 97-125.
Ashforth, B.E., & Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behaviors. Human
Relations, 41, 4, 305-329.
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M.J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism syndrome.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 1, 52-62.
Bains, G. (2007). Meaning, Inc. Profile Books.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R.F. (1991). Work, work, work, work. In Meanings of Life (pp.116-144). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Bellah, R.N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits of the
Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper Row.
Calling Orientation 41
Bono, J. E., & Vey, M. A. (2007). Personality and emotional performance: Extraversion,
neuroticism, and self-monitoring.
Brief, A.P., & Nord, W.R. (1990). Meanings of Occupational Work. Lexington: Lexington
Books.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 177-
192.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of
Bronson, P. (2002). What should I do with my life? New York: Random House.
the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7,
57-67.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two
perspectives of ‘people work’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17-39.
Bulan, H.F., Erickson, R.J., & Wharton, A.S. (1997). Doing for others on the job: The affective
structure of social work. Social Problems, 44, 235-256.
Cardador, M.T., & Pratt, M.G. (2006). Occupational identity and the meaning of work: toward
an expanded understanding of work orientation. Paper presented at the Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Castillo, J.J. (1997). Looking for the meaning of work. Work and Occupations, 24, 4, 413-125.
Cardador, M.T., Pratt, M.G., & Dane, E.I. (2006). Do callings matter in medicine? The
influence of callings versus careers on domain specific work outcomes. Paper presented at
the Positive Organizational Scholarship Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Champoux, J.E. (1991). A multivariate test of the Job Characteristics Theory of Work
Motivation. Organizational Behavior, 12, 5, 431-446.
Calling Orientation 42
Côté, S. (2005). A social interaction model of the effects of emotion regulation on work strain.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 3, 509-530.
Csíkszentmihályi, Mihály (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dekas, K.H., & Baker, W.E. (2008). Investigating the origins of work orientations.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3, 499-512.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and
antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
339-357.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Gosserand, R. H. (2003). Understanding the emotional labor
process: a control theory perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
945-959.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Richard, E. M. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of emotional
display rule perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 284-294.
Diefendorff, J. M., Richard, E. M., & Croyle, M. H. (2006). Are emotional display rules
formal job requirements? Examination of employee and supervisor perceptions.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 273-298.
Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial workers’ worlds: A study of the central life interests of industrial
workers. Social Problems, 3, 131-142.
Dunnette, M.D. (1999). Introduction. An occupational information system for the 21st century:
The development of O*NET. American Psychological Association , Washington, D.C.
Calling Orientation 43
Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review. New
York: Academic Press.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health and job performance: Effects of
weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 3, 187-199.
Glomb, T.M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., & Rotundo, M. (2004). Emotional demands and
compensating wage differentials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 4, 700-714.
Glomb, T.M., Miner, A.G., & Hulin, C. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at
work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 2, 171-193.
Glomb, T.M., & Tews, M.J. (2004). Emotional labor: a conceptualization and scale
development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 1-23.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to
conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
95-110.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as
determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.
Grandey, A.A., & Brauburger, A.L. (2002). The emotion regulation behind the customer
service smile. In R.Lord, R., Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace
(pp. 260-294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grandey, A., Fisk, G., & Steiner, D. (2005). Must "Service with a Smile" Be Stressful? The
Moderating Role of Personal Control for U.S. and French Employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 5, 893-904.
Calling Orientation 44
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.
Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact
and the art of motivation maintenance: the effects of contact with beneficiaries on
persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1,
53-67.
Green, F. (2006). Demanding Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hackman, J.R. & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hewlett, S.A. & Luce, C.B. (2006). Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-hour
workweek. Harvard Business Review, 84, 12, 49-59.
Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of
Sociology, 85(3), 551-575.
Hochschild, A.R. (1983). The managed heart: commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hochschild, A.R. (1990). Ideology and emotion management: a perspective and path for future
research. In T.D. Kemper, (Ed.), Research agendas in the sociology of emotions. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
International Personality Item Pool (2001). A Scientific Collaboratory for the Development of
Calling Orientation 45
Advanced Measures of Personality Traits and Other Individual Differences
(http://ipip.ori.org/). Internet Web Site.
Ironson, G., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of
a "Job in General" scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Judge, T.A., & Scott, B.A. (2009). The role of core self-evaluations in
the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1, 177-195.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 3, 341-349.
Lance, C.E., Baranik, L.E., Lau, A.R., & Scharlau, E.A. (2009). If it ain’t trait it must be
method: (mis)application of the multitrait-multimethod methodology in organizational
research. In Lance, E. & Vandenberg. R.J. (Eds.) Statistical and methodological myths
and urban legend. New York: CRC Press.
Levoy, G. (1997). Callings: findings and following an Authentic Life. New York: Three Rivers
Press.
Liu, Y., Prati, L.M., Perrewe, P.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2008). The relationship between emotional
resources and emotional labor: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38, 10, 2410-2439.
Loscocco, K.A. (1989). The instrumentally oriented factory worker. Work and Occupations,
16, 1, 3-25.
Lodahl, T.M., Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 49, 1, 24-33.
Luong, A. (2005). Affective service display and customer mood. Journal of Service
Calling Orientation 46
Research, 8, 117-130.
MacDonald, C. L., & Sirianni, C. (1996). The service society and the changing
experience of work. In C. L. MacDonald & C. Sirianni (Eds.), Working in the service
society (pp. 1-26). Philadephia: Temple University Press.
Mattila, A. S., & Enz, C. A. (2002). The role of emotions in service encounters. Journal
Mainemelis, Charalampos (2001), "When the Muse Takes It All: A Model for the Experience of
Timelessness in Organizations", The Academy of Management Review 26, 4, 548–565.
of Service Research, 4, 268-277.
Meaning of Work (MOW) International Research Team. (1987) The Meaning of Working.
New York: Academic Press.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Academy of Management Review, 21, 986-1010.
Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D., & Jackson, P.R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible
employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 4, 899-929.
Pratt, M.G., & Ashforth, B.E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and work. In K.S.
Cameron, J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018-1027.
Pugliesi, K. (1999). The consequences of emotional labor: Effects on work stress, job
satisfaction, and well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 125-154.
Schor, J. (1992). The overworked American: The Unexpected Decline in Leisure. New York:
Basic Books.
Calling Orientation 47
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organizational Studies, 12,
3, 405-424.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Spence, J.T., & Robbins, A.S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 1, 160-178.
Spector, P.E., (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taris, T.W., Le Blanc, P.M., Schaufel, W.B., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2005). Are there causal
relationships between the dimensions of the Maslach Burnout Inventory? A review and
two longitudinal tests. Work Stress, 19, 3, 238-255.
Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (2006). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: pat analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 2, 259-293.
Tolich, M.B. (1993). Alienating and liberating emotions at work. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 22, 361-381.
Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion regulation in customer service rolls:
Testing a model of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, (1),
55-73.
Tsai, W.C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive
emotions. Journal of Management, 27, 497-512.
Tsai, W.C., & Huang, Y.-M. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery
and customer behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1001-
Calling Orientation 48
1008.
Van Rooy, D.L.,& Viswesvaran, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence: a meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1, 71-95.
Wallace, J.C., Edwards, B.D., Shull, A., & Finch, D.M. (2009) Examining the consequences in
the tendency to suppress and reappraise emotions on task-related job performance. Human
Performance, 22, 23-43.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan
and J. Johnson (Eds.) Handbook of Personality Psychology. (pp. 767-793). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wharton, A.S. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on the
job. Work and Occupations, 20, 205-232.
Wharton, A.S. (1996). Service with a smile: Understanding the consequences of emotional
labor. In C. L. Macdonald and Siranni, C. (Eds.) Working in the Service Society.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wharton, A.S. (2009) The sociology of emotional labor. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 147-
165.
Wilson, G. (1981). Personality and social behavior. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.) A Model for
Personality, pp. 210-245. Springer, New York.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 2, 179-201.
Calling Orientation 49
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sense-making and the
meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93-135.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz B. 1997. Jobs, careers, and callings:
People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21-33.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Tosti, J. (2007). My job, your calling: work orientation diversity in
interdependent work teams. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Yugo, J.E., Gillespie, J.Z. (in progress). Career and calling as work meanings: work orientation
as a two-dimensional construct.
Yugo, J.E., McInroe, J., & Fritz, C. (2008). Exploring the relationship between work orientation
and well-being. Paper to be presented in K.H. Dekas & J. Tosti (chairs) Reinforcing and
reorienting work orientation research: beyond jobs, careers and callings. Showcase
Symposium to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management.
Anaheim, CA.
Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a
source of stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (3), 371-400.
Calling Orientation 50
Table 1. Items in Glomb et al (2004), equation of emotional demands and indices for example occupations.
Job Title Assisting and caring for others
Performing or working for the
public
Deal with external customers
Frequency in conflict situations
Deal with angry unpleasant
people
TOTAL Index
1. Police patrol officer (n=37)
70 92 98 94 92 446 89
2. Counseling Psychologist (n=16)
100 85 78 74 49 386 77
3. Retail Manager (n=29)
40 86 97 50 62 335 67
4. Retail salesperson (n=81)
44 77 89 55 64 329 66
5. University Administrator (n=37)
50 64 76 56 66 312 62
6. Sales Engineer (n=59)
66 34 77 61 57 295 59
7. Credit Analyst (n=38)
26 3 55 30 41 155 39
8. Engineer (n=51)
35 6 34 28 33 136 27
Note. N=338.
Calling Orientation 51
Table 2. Original and revised work orientation measure with new pilot items.
Calling Orientation (α= .87) 1. I view my job as just a necessity of life, much like breathing or sleeping. 2. I never take work home with me. 3. I would not encourage young people to pursue my line of work. 4. I am eager to retire. 5. When I am not at work, I do not think much about my work. 6. I would choose my current work again if I had the opportunity. 7. I enjoy talking about my work with others. 8. I find my work rewarding. 9. My work is one of the most important things in my life. 10. I feel in control of my work life. 11. My work makes the world a better place.
Note. Items 1-5 on the Calling scale are reverse coded. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients by each subscale refer to the final measurement models
Calling Orientation 52
Table 3. Measures of emotional labor strategies. Surface Acting
1. I fake a good mood. 2. I put on a “show” or “performance.” 3. I just pretend to have the emotions I need to display for my job. 4. I hide my true feelings about situations. 5. I put on an act in order to deal with customers/clients in an appropriate way. 6. I resist expressing my true feelings. 7. I put on a “mask” in order to display the emotions I need to for my job.
Deep Acting
1. I try to actually experience the emotions I must show to customers. 2. I work hard to feel the emotions that I need to show to customers. 3. I make an effort to actually feel the emotions that I need to display toward others. 4. I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to show to customers.
Expression of genuine felt emotions
1. The emotions I express to customers are genuine. 2. The emotions I show customers come naturally. 3. The emotions I show customers match what I spontaneously feel.
Calling Orientation 53
Table 4. Variable means, standard deviations and alpha internal consistency reliability
Note. N=338.
Variable Mean SD α 1. O*NET Emotional demands 54.31 13.86 .60 2. Self-Report Emotional
demands 3.57 0.98 .68
3. Surface Acting 2.19 0.92 .88 4. Deep Acting 2.26 1.09 .91 5. Genuine Felt Emotions 3.18 0.65 .81 6. Negative Affect 1.69 0.48 .84 7. Positive Affect 3.75 0.43 .86 8. Calling Orientation 3.14 0.75 .92 9. Career Orientation 2.75 0.80 .78 10. Job Satisfaction 1.89 0.35 .92
Calling Orientation 54
Table 5. Variable inter-correlations.
Note. N=338. Correlations above .19 are significant at the p<.05 level. Correlations greater than .31 are significant at the p<.01 level.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Age
2. Tenure -.07 3. Gender -.09 .03
4. Job Level .21 .11 .10 5. O*NET Emotional demands -.07 .67 .37 .29
6. Self-Report Emotional demands .08 .48 .39 .31 .76 7. Surface Acting -.30 .05 -.24 -.21 .43 .21 8. Deep Acting .25 -.23 .34 -.22 .26 .47 -.36
9. Genuine Felt Emotions .36 .08 .41 .36 .24 .57 -.28 .41 10. Positive Affect .12 .06 .11 .15 .21 -.17 -.24 .19 .17 11. Negative Affect -.07 -.24 .08 -.05 -.25 -.27 .63 -.29 -.62 -.67
12. Calling Orientation .40 .22 .04 .32 .29 .19 -.21 .35 .37 .34 -.35 13. Career Orientation .44 -.54 -.05 -.02 -.07 -.33 .27 .24 -.17 -.21 .22 .29
14. Job Satisfaction -.01 .37 -.04 .32 .24 .15 -.37 -.23 .43 .38 -.29 .40 -.17
Calling Orientation 55
Table 6. Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions. Surface Acting Deep Acting
Genuine Felt Emotions
Step Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 1 Intercept 9.35 16.32 19.36 11.31 18.50 22.78 7.47 8.27 12.65 Gender -.06 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.05 -.04 -.02 Age .09 .02 .08 .04 .07 .07 .08 .04 .09 Tenure .02 .07 .09 .07 .04 .04 .01 .02 .05 Negative
Affect .12* .08 .07 -.15* -.11* -.09 -.22** -.18* -.15*
Positive Affect
-.17* -.10* -.08 .16* .10 .04 .24* .14 .07
2 O*NET Emotional demands
.32** .41** .49** .36** .46** .51**
Calling -.31** -.21** .28* .23* .23** .18** 3 EDxCalling -.15* .19* .21** R .05 2 .32 .41 .07 .46 .51 .07 .25 .41 Change in
R
2 .27 .09 .39 .13 .17 .23
Overall F 3.31 15.32* 17.23** 2.87 17.36** 19.34** 2.87 12.32* 18.45** Change in
F 12.01** 2.09* 14.49** 1.98* 8.86** 6.13*
Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01
Calling Orientation 56
Table 7. Hierarchical moderated regression testing calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and surface acting, deep acting and genuine felt emotions. Surface Acting
Deep Acting Genuine Felt Emotions
Step Predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 1 Intercept 9.35 16.32 19.36 11.31 18.50 22.78 7.47 8.27 12.65 Gender -.06 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.05 -.04 -.02 Age .09 .02 .08 .04 .07 .07 .08 .04 .09 Tenure .02 .07 .09 .07 .04 .04 .01 .02 .05 Negative
Affect .12* .08 .07 -.15* -.11* -.09 -.22** -.18* -.15*
Positive Affect
-.17* -.10* -.08 .16* .10 .04 .24* .14 .07
2 Self-Report Emotional demands
.21** .37** .41** .38** .42** .48**
Calling -.34** -.27** .33** .25** .26** .24** 3 EDxCalling -.21** .25** .26** R .05 2 .36 .42 .07 .47 .54 .07 .34 .45 Change in
R
2 .31 .06 .40 .14 .27 .11
Overall F 3.31 16.56** 18.21** 2.87 18.89** 20.43** 2.87 14.54** 17.42** Change in
F 13.25** 1.65* 16.02** 1.54 11.67** 2.88*
Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01
Calling Orientation 57
Table 8. Moderated mediation analysis for surface acting partially mediating the interaction of calling orientation and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.
Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01
Step 1: Initial Outcome
Step 2: Initial Mediator
Step 3: Mediator Outcome controlling for Initial
Step 4: Initial Outcome controlling for mediator
Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .18* -.16* -.16* Calling Orientation .26** -.22* .18* .18* Negative Affect -.12* .13* -.09 -.09 Positive Affect .14* -.08 .11* .11* Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation
.34**
-.26**
.21**
.19*
Mediator Surface Acting -.19* .35** Outcome Job Satisfaction
R .19** 2 .38** .24** .24**
Calling Orientation 58
Table 9. Moderated mediation analysis for Deep Acting partially mediating the interaction of Calling and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.
Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01
Step 1: Initial Outcome
Step 2: Initial Mediator
Step 3: Mediator Outcome controlling for Initial
Step 4: Initial Outcome controlling for mediator
Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .11* -.10* -.10* Calling Orientation .26** .21* .17* .17* Negative Affect -.12* -.11* -.04 -.04 Positive Affect
.14* .15 .07 .07
Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation
.34**
.21**
-.25**
.16*
Mediator .17* .29** Deep Acting Outcome Job Satisfaction
R .19** 2 .32** .27** .27**
Calling Orientation 59
Table 10. Moderated mediation analysis for Genuine Felt Emotion partially mediating the interaction of Calling and O*NET emotional demands on job satisfaction.
Note. N=338. *p<.05; **p<.01
Step 1: Initial Outcome
Step 2: Initial Mediator
Step 3: Mediator Outcome controlling for Initial
Step 4: Initial Outcome controlling for mediator
Control Variables O*NET Emotional demands -.11* .18* -.10* -.10* Calling Orientation .26** .21* .17* .17* Negative Affect -.12* -.05* -.06 -.06 Positive Affect
.14* .12 .08 .08
Initial Predictor Variable O*NET Emotional demands x Calling Orientation
.34**
.22**
.26**
.21*
Mediator .24* .31** Genuine Felt Emotion Outcome Job Satisfaction
R .19** 2 .38** .33** .23**
Calling Orientation 60
Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationships.
Emotional Demands - O*NET - Self-report
Global Job Satisfaction
Calling Orientation
Emotional Labor - Genuine Felt
Emotion - Deep Acting - Surface Acting
- +
Calling Orientation 61
Figure 2. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and surface acting.
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Gen
uin
e F
elt
Em
oti
on
s
O*Net Emotional Demands
Low Calling High Calling
Surf
ace
Act
ing
Surf
ace
Act
ing
Calling Orientation 62
Figure 3. Calling as a moderator between Self-Report Emotional demands and Surface Acting.
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
Self-Report Emotional Demands
Gen
uine
Fel
t Em
otio
Low Calling High Calling
Surf
ace
Act
ing
Calling Orientation 63
Figure 4. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and deep acting.
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Gen
uin
e F
elt
Em
oti
on
s
O*Net Emotional Demands
Low Calling High Calling
Dee
p A
ctin
g
Calling Orientation 64
Figure 5. Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and deep acting.
-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1
00.10.20.3
Gen
uin
e F
elt
Em
oti
on
s
Self-Report Emotional Demands
Low Calling High Calling
Dee
p A
ctin
g
Calling Orientation 65
Figure 6. Calling as a moderator between O*NET emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.
-0.3-0.25
-0.2-0.15
-0.1-0.05
00.05
0.1
Gen
uine
Fel
t E
mot
ions
O*Net Emotional Demands
Low Calling High Calling
Gen
uine
Fel
t Em
otio
ns
Calling Orientation 66
Figure 7. Calling as a moderator between self-report emotional demands and genuine felt emotions.
-0.45-0.4
-0.35-0.3
-0.25-0.2
-0.15-0.1
-0.050
Gen
uin
e F
elt
Em
oti
on
s
Self-Report Emotional Demands
Low Calling High Calling